Paleoconservative is a term that describes conservatives who opine strong restrictions on immigration, a rollback of multicultural programmes, the decentralization of the federal polity, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and isolationism in the conduct of American foreign policy, and a generally revanchist outlook upon a social order in need of recovering old lines of distinction and in particular the assignment of roles in accordance with traditional categories of gender, ethnicity, and race.[1] As such, paleoconservatives differ from mainstream conservatives.[2]

Contents

Etymology

The term paleoconservative was first used by paleoconservative historians Thomas Fleming and Paul Gottfried, with the "paleo" prefix meaning "old" in opposition to the "neo", or "new", conservatives. The term is now routinely used by both its proponents and its detractors.[3]

Gottfried wrote in his entry to American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia: "Paleoconservative" becomes a conceptual and political counterpoint to "neoconservative" in "The Conservative Movement" by Thomas Fleming and Paul Gottfried (1988). Here the term no longer refers merely to conservative traditionalists of the 1950s and 1960s, e.g., Southern Agrarians, Catholic anticommunists associated with "National Review", and Taft Republicans who rallied to the Cold War. Instead, the term is now applied to embattled conservatives who opposed the growing influence of anticommunist New Deal Democrats on the Reagan presidency and on the conservative movement on the 1980s."

Philosophy

Paleoconservatism "is distinguished by certain philosophical presumptions that differ markedly from the presumptions of neocons and most modern conservatives."[4]

Unlike most conservatives today, paleoconservatives are against the Iraq War. They are highly critical of the Bush administration and the mainstream conservative movement. Paleoconservatism vocally distinguishes itself in its opposition to neoconservatism. However, what really sets them apart from other conservatives is much deeper than just policy: they generally reject the Enlightenment in whole or in part; they reject Lockean "contract theory"

Most controversially, they reject the concept of "natural rights" outright. Dr. Donald Livingston, Professor of Philosophy at Emory University, has argued that natural rights are a "philosophical superstition," and that "Whatever they might be, natural rights are universal and apply to all men. Further, they are known by reason, independent of any inherited moral tradition... It follows, therefore, that the doctrine of natural rights must be in a condition of permanent hostility to all inherited moral traditions. Any such tradition, no matter how noble the goods of excellence cultivated in it, can always be seen as violating someone's natural rights under some interpretation or another."[5]

Paleos agree with mainstream conservatives on issues like opposition to secularism, abortion on demand and gay marriage, while supporting capital punishment, handgun ownership and an original intent reading of the U.S. Constitution. Paleocons also often argue that modern managerial society is a threat to stable families.

Culture

Paleoconservatives differ from neoconservatives on immigration, affirmative action and, unlike mainstream conservatives, paleos generally oppose miscegenation (multicultural integration). Paleoconservatives also question the supposition that Europeanculture and mores can ever be transplanted or forced upon non-Western cultures, due to separate cultural heritages. As a result, paleocons are most distinctive in their emphatic opposition to open immigration by non-Europeans, and their general disapproval of U.S. intervention overseas for the purposes of exporting democracy.[6]

Economy

Paleoconservatives support free marketcapitalism, but many are ardent opponents of free trade, citing disintegration of America's manufacturing base, and American dependence on imports as adverse effects of free trade. They strongly oppose all forms of socialism or communism. They seek to replace Federal Reserve System with a Constitutional monetary system. They are deeply concerned with the United States' loans of large amounts of money from the World Bank and the huge trade deficit the country is experiencing. Unlike mainstream conservatives, paleos oppose the continuing US financial support of Israel. Like other conservatives, they emphasize the importance of creating jobs for the working class and the slashing of taxes and spending.

Definitions

In the March 2004 edition of Chronicles magazine, Samuel Francis defined paleoconservatism versus conservatism as: "What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones."

Journalist Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News outlined what he called the "Crunchy Con Manifesto", which summarizes most paleoconservative principles:

"We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

Culture is more important than politics and economics.

A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship — especially of the natural world — is not fundamentally conservative.

Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”

Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives."[7]

Further reading

References

↑Michael Foley (25 October 2007). American credo: the place of ideas in US politics. Oxford University Press. Retrieved on 18 January 2012. “Against accusations of being pre-modern or even anti-modern in outlook, paleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of multicultural programmes, the decentralization of the federal polity, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and isolationism in the conduct of American foreign policy, and a generally revanchist outlook upon a social order in need of recovering old lines of distinction and in particular the assignment of roles in accordance with traditional categories of gender, ethnicity, and race.”

↑ 2.02.1Euan Hague, Edward H. Sebesta, Heidi Beirich (1 December 2008). Neo-confederacy: a critical introduction. University of Texas Press. Retrieved on 18 January 2012. “The major ideologues of the recent revial of neo-Confederacy are, as we outline in Chapter I, almost all activists who identified themsevles as paleoconservatives, decided to split from mainstream U.S. conservatism, and solidified their views around a vision of the South as "a priceless and irreplaceable treasure that must be conserved." Hostile towards organiztions such as the Legaue of the South and Council of Conservative Citizens, neo-Confederacy can also be said to inform more mainstream organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy and, arguably, prominent politicians such as Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond.”

↑Phillips, Dan "What the Heck is a Paleoconservative and Why You Should Care" (2006) Intellectual Conservative. Accessed 26 December 2007.

↑Phillips, Dan "What the Heck is a Paleoconservative and Why You Should Care" op cit.